I just can't understand the thought that Jennings is supposedly worth nothing because he's 28 years old. Especially given his mostly durable track record.

You're going to have to pay him but I have no problem paying a guy like Jennings. Green Bay would regret it if they let him go.

It's a numbers thing. In addition to Jennings; Matthews, Raji, Rodgers, and (presumably) Finley are all due for new contracts over the next two years. Somebody is probably going to walk, and it won't be Rodgers, Matthews, or Raji.

You don't pay guys for what they HAVE done in the league, you pay them for what you think they WILL DO.

Jennings had obviously found success in his career. But for a 29 year old who will want #1 receiver kind of money and isn't anything particularly special from a physical standpoint, I wouldn't want him. Like, not even for a hilariously low draft pick just because I wouldn't want to have to pay to extend him.

Like BBD said on page 1, just draft someone. You get someone younger and significantly cheaper. Obviously, you're gambling that the rookie will become something in the NFL, but it's a chance I'd take over paying and vet pushing 30 who wants big money.

Eh, I wasn't really making an argument for or against. I was against the Julio trade too. I didn't think the positional value is there for WR, especially with today's friendly rules, and I still think how successful Atlanta is as a team will determine the justification of that trade; not how well Julio plays. I was mostly just making fun of the board's consistency in these things. Either way, this is an impossible trade, so it's not worth devoting too many brain cells.

But I do disagree with the notion of just drafting someone. Unless you have an elite QB, you're not going to just plug a midrounder in and get similar production. It took Jordy Nelson, a 2nd RD pick, until his 4th season to finally do what Jennings has been doing, and that was with Aaron Rodgers passing him the ball in GB's offensive system.

And I do think past production is necessary. All contracts are enacted on potential, so past production is important in determining the ceiling of that potential. It helps structure the terms, and is why such a fuss was made over rookie contracts getting so inflated. And while I agree that Jennings past could be baseless if he were a RB or if this conversation were in 3-4 years from now, Jennings plays a position that you can play well into your mid-30's, so he still has another contract in him. I don't see why, with his hands and route running, he can't remain a 900-1,100 yard receiver for the next 4 seasons. Is that worth #1 money? No, but I'm not sure what kind of contract he expects and he'd undoubtedly sign an extension prior to being traded, so the team that trades for him would be offering that money in FA regardless. So, essentially, the team trading for him is either doing so to ensure not being outbid or to prevent someone else from acquiring him through a trade of their own. I'd say that value would be a 5th RD'er, considering GB would be losing the future 4th they'd probably get from him signing elsewhere in FA (Meanwhile, GB could also sign someone this offseason and wouldn't risk losing that potential supplementary pick in the process; they'd not only have the pick guaranteed, but a year earlier and earlier in the draft order).

I think one of these teams who has a young QB would greatly desire Jennings, but it's all irrelevant. I don't think a trade will ever happen, but that thinking isn't because I don't think a team would deal a sign-and-trade for him. It's because the Packers would be nuts to trade him when they're shooting for a Super Bowl, and because they're shooting for that and the offering team wouldn't be, the player values wouldn't align for either side to agree. Plus, why not tag him for another year while your window is open?

They may have six receivers on the roster but even the most optimistic 49ers fans doesn't expect three of them; Jenkins, Ginn and Williams; to contribute very much on offense this year. Like I said, I liked the way Crabtree looked last week but I don't know if I am ready to declare him good yet, Manningham is at best a good #2 and we haven't seen enough from Moss yet. Jennings would instantly give us a legitimate #1 WR and turn our receiving corps from maybe decent to very good. For a 3rd and a 4th round pick I would definitely do it.

Jennings can't even stay on the field and you wouldn't mind giving a 3rd and 4th round pick for him? And he's 29?

Sorry, but that's a bad trade no matter which way you look at it to me.

I'm comfortable with Moss, Manningham, and Crabtree as our top three receivers. Williams, Jenkins, and Ginn aren't bad reserves to have.

And I don't see Jennings as the kind of guy that can go to any team, be plugged into a new system with new players he's never worked with before and just dominate a secondary.

Jennings hasn't finished the last three games he played in. And he's not playing tonight against the Bears. His body is clearly starting to break down.

over-reaction if you ask me. I think Jennings is still one of the leagues best receivers and I think his route-running, football intelligence and hands will translate to any system he goes to and keep him a productive receiver well into his 30s.

over-reaction if you ask me. I think Jennings is still one of the leagues best receivers and I think his route-running, football intelligence and hands will translate to any system he goes to and keep him a productive receiver well into his 30s.

I'm just stating the facts. We'll see if he can stay on the field as time goes on.

I'm just stating the facts. We'll see if he can stay on the field as time goes on.

"His body is clearly breaking down" is not a fact. And I think to say that his body is clearly breaking down based on the fact that hes missed a few games recently is a huge and unjustified leap in logic. Hes been very reliable throughout his career and stays in good shape, but its football and freak injuries do happen and sometimes they come in waves. But to say that at 28 his body is breaking down and he is done, I think he has to miss more than 3 or 4 games to make that statement.

"His body is clearly breaking down" is not a fact. And I think to say that his body is clearly breaking down based on the fact that hes missed a few games recently is a huge and unjustified leap in logic. Hes been very reliable throughout his career and stays in good shape, but its football and freak injuries do happen and sometimes they come in waves. But to say that at 28 his body is breaking down and he is done, I think he has to miss more than 3 or 4 games to make that statement.

But it is a fact that he hasn't been able to finish the last three games he's started in at the age of 29 now. We'll see who is right as we go forward.

Could you argue that Jennings is more polished or a better route runner or not a moron...absolutely. Marshall has far superior physical tools and is exactly what our offense needed. Plus, because he's a moron, he's a little cheaper and, as a possession receiver, can produce for longer.

So hell yes I liked the Marshall trade. Not even comparable here.

And also, we DID draft Alshon Jeffery, who is just as big and physical and could become the #1 down the line. So we got the best of both worlds in this discussion.

Care to enlighten me on what "physical toolS" that marshall has over Jennings? All I can think of is height. That's all.

I'd still happily move one of those excess picks Miami has for Jennings. Easily would give one of the 3rds but heck, I'd even give our 2nd or the one we got for Vontae. Jennings and Hartline as starters, move Bess back to the slot, we'd have the makings of a real WR corps there.

Funny that asdf started this thread because it's painfully obvious that the Seahawks would pursue him if the Packers shopped him.

Eh don't think so. We don't trade for older players and we still not that type of contender to give up premium picks. With extensions for lot of key players coming I don't think we do anything in free agency for a couple of years.

I love Jennings and would gladly give up a 2 or a 3 for him but don't think we're that type of team yet.

Eh don't think so. We don't trade for older players and we still not that type of contender to give up premium picks. With extensions for lot of key players coming I don't think we do anything in free agency for a couple of years.

I love Jennings and would gladly give up a 2 or a 3 for him but don't think we're that type of team yet.

Not sure trading for Greg Jennings would be that much of a change from the strategy of acquiring Deion Branch, Sydney Rice and even Kellen Winslow.

Not sure trading for Greg Jennings would be that much of a change from the strategy of acquiring Deion Branch, Sydney Rice and even Kellen Winslow.

Branch wasn't this regime, Sidney was only 25 when he signed his deal (and didn't cost a pick) and Winslow was free(no guaranteed money and we owed a pick to the Bucs only if he made the roster). Jennings is looking for a 3rd contract, Clemons is the only guy who we paid for into his 30s on his third deal. All other guys have been young or short term deals or washed up vets looking for a new start.